Wisden Cricketers of the Year

[tooextracool]

Unfortunately you dont know enough.
If you did, you would've realised that a 2-3 pts difference in average over a 3 match series is a piffle..

and so is 4-5, then again thats what separates the good bowlers from the mediocre ones. you could so easily say that someone who averaged 25 in a series did well and yet say that someone who averaged 30 was average. it all adds up over the career, fact is warne bowled better, by small amounts or not is irrelevant.

Proper application of stats does show him behind by a lil bit.
Proper application of stats also include the bowlers they faced off against and take into account the prime form and subsequent near-career end lack of it.

yet when it comes to hooper vs ganguly etc, you dont do the same. obviously because it makes you look better. perhaps in your degree in statistics they thought you how to manipulate stats too?

I disagree. Overall, he is a better batsman. While he is a bit behind against quality opposition, he is definately ahead against the rest..

wow, fabulous then. as though his scoring runs against rubbish opposition was actually required, given that almost every other player could do that anyways. fact is hussain and butcher performed when their team needed them most. ganguly instead performed when the things were easy.

And remember one thing- neither hussain nor butcher are half as good ODI batsmen as Ganguly is/was..

because ive said hussain and butcher are better ODI players is it?
we were talking about test cricket, no surprise that you changed topic though, to try and make ganguly look better.

Bowlers DO NOT bowl until they stop taking wickets...by and large bowlers bowl 7-10 over spells and get replaced by a fresher bowler(unless he is a spinner).I can give you numerous examples of bowlers going off 1-2 overs after taking a wicket simply because they are too tired.
In anycase, McGrath-Gillespie are a lot better at taking wickets than Vaas-whomever.
The difference between Murali comming in and Warne comming in is that in general fewer wickets have fallen in favour of SL compared to AUS and the batsmen at crease are far more settled, having spend significantly more time in the crease and under considerably less pressure (since less wickets have fallen) as compared to Warne.

Just to illustrate my point, in the last series between AUS and SL, Warne and Murali came on to bowl with the opposition thus positioned:

Murali

1st test : AUS 55/1 , AUS 11/0
2nd test: AUS 23/0 , AUS 0/0
3rd test: AUS 72/2 , 36/0


Warne :

1st test : SL 33/0, SL 0./0
2nd test: SL 58/4 , SL 56/2
3rd test: SL 63/0 , SL 18/0

As you can see, Warne comes in when the opposition are significantly worse off....even in SL...factor in other countries where McGrath-Gillespie etc. get an extended run and warne comes in 2nd change, you'll find that warne comes in after significantly more wickets have fallen and there is significantly more pressure on the batsmen.
Whats more, the OZ unit has the ability to sustain that pressure which mutually benifits them and in that area, SL are seriously lacking...

err what? just because they are 58/4 it doesnt mean that warne comes in when there are fresh batsmen. because there could easily have been a minor partnership before he came on that got them back on track. nonetheless its a spell by spell thing, not when they came on to bowl for their first spell only.

Its really quiete brainless to argue that a bowler doesnt want excellent bowlers to back themselves up and instead would prefer to be a lone warrior- check interviews from Walsh who lamented seriously that WI's lack of support bowlers was seriously hurting the team cause. Having an excellent bowling cast is what benifits OZ and benifitted the WI of the yesteryears...simply because the batsmen are under a lot more pressure and are a lot more tested. Against NZ for eg, the average batsman didnt even face HALF as many topclass delivery as they did against WI of that era and its a matter of pure time vs the WI when you will come crashing down...just like against OZ(to a lesser extent) in this era.
Every single bowler would prefer to have 3 topclass bowler around him, since it makes his job so much easier.Another factor is that batsmen cannot afford to play you out as you are the 'sole threat' but instead will have to flash his arm against you just as much as another.

its not brainless at all, because if that were the case, you could argue that richard hadlee was far far far better than marshall, simply because he bowled with less support. yet most people consider marshall to be better. fact is that many times hadlee got his wickets, because the rest of the bowlers were incapable of doing so, especially when you have the conditions to your favour. bowling with more support, means more competition, and you basically any weak batsmen will be torn apart by the good bowlers who bowl first.

 

[C_C]

and so is 4-5, then again thats what separates the good bowlers from the mediocre ones. you could so easily say that someone who averaged 25 in a series did well and yet say that someone who averaged 30 was average. it all adds up over the career, fact is warne bowled better, by small amounts or not is irrelevant.

Ofcourse the amount is relevant. And 4-5 pts might seperate a good bowler from a great one through one's entire CAREER...that spans 50 to 100+ matches or so. Over 3 match series, its irrelevant. To say that warne did better than murali in that series is accurate. To include that in evaluative comparison of two players is stupid.

yet when it comes to hooper vs ganguly etc, you dont do the same. obviously because it makes you look better. perhaps in your degree in statistics they thought you how to manipulate stats too?

ofcourse i do the same when it comes to Hooper and Ganguly. One has to take into account Hooper's entire career with perspective to Ganguly and the fact that by 96 Hooper had been around for nearly 10 years while it being ganguly's first factors in.

because ive said hussain and butcher are better ODI players is it?
we were talking about test cricket, no surprise that you changed topic though, to try and make ganguly look better.

Notice i have always argued on BATSMANSHIP...be it tests or ODIs or alltogether. And like i said, Hussain might be slightly worse than ganguly but with butcher it really is a nobrainer. Ganguly is better.

err what? just because they are 58/4 it doesnt mean that warne comes in when there are fresh batsmen. because there could easily have been a minor partnership before he came on that got them back on track. nonetheless its a spell by spell thing, not when they came on to bowl for their first spell only.

it definately matters when you come on to bowl....with Warne he comes on when the pressure is higher on the batting side...on average the batsmen are more unsettled and more wickets have fallen,thereby increasing the pressure on the batsmen.

its not brainless at all, because if that were the case, you could argue that richard hadlee was far far far better than marshall, simply because he bowled with less support. yet most people consider marshall to be better. fact is that many times hadlee got his wickets, because the rest of the bowlers were incapable of doing so, especially when you have the conditions to your favour. bowling with more support, means more competition, and you basically any weak batsmen will be torn apart by the good bowlers who bowl first.

it is brainless and i have explained numerous times why it is so. For one to have more support usually translates to better average with less wicket/match. The fact that Warne has both of them inferior to Murali is a testament to Murali's superiority.Its clear you have much to learn about the nuances of the game.Bowling with more support means more competition for wickets but an easier time with the average. Instead of taking 5-110 you take 3-60, since batting sides have the option to play you out. As such, to be a lone warrior and better the average of one who operates in a pack is hard and to do so consistently is a marker of your supriority.